drain.you
20th May 2006, 02:03
Hey everyone,
I have wrote what can only be described as a ramble of my views of nationalisation. Go easy on me, I'm no expert. I'm accepting criticism of course. I want to know where I am going wrong but prefer to not have the 'you fucking idiot' remarks and such lol. enjoy....or not.
Remember this is my first decent lengthed attempt to tackle an issue like this. Man, I'm really quite nervous, seen how you people can rip apart people's views lol.
The Question of Nationalisation: Giving it back to the people
In most left leaning countries (both current and in the past) the governments allows for some institutions to be nationalised. Nationalisation is the act of a government or/and the people taking assets into public ownership rather than being owned by a powerful elite. Cuba is an example of a state that nationalised many companies, it did so after the 1959 revolution nationalising a grand number of companies ranging from oil refineries to the Cuban telephone company.
Nationalisation can benefit society in many ways but most notably, it transforms an institution’s main goal of making money into serving the public’s needs and so becoming directly accountable to the public, in theory. Naturally, many capitalists will find the idea of nationalisation quite disturbing. While we know that capitalists are money greedy fiends, they may have a point that if you nationalise an industry then there will be no competition, which could be argued helps industries move forward. After all if the government is holding a monopoly over public transport, for example, then there will be no alternative that the public can use and no matter how bad the service is, the public will have to use it. This needs to be avoided, but how?
To keep an institution directly accountable to the people then the people need a direct say in how the institutions are ran. Some institutions are nationalised under capitalism. For example, in the United Kingdom a large range of institutions were under nationalisation until as late as the 1970s, such as British Gas, British Rail and British Shipbuilders. However under capitalism, the government and thus the people who decide how nationalised institutions are organised are made up of political elite who often does not represent the majority of the population that they serve. This can be backed up by the fact that most members of Parliament are educated in certain universities, tend to be white, middle aged, male and from a middle class or even upper class background who have no idea what it is like to use public transport or live in government rented accommodation. Therefore how can they possibly run institutions effectively for the use of the everyday man, especially when politicians are subject to businesses trying to buy deals in government projects and other corruption? So for a first major point regarding nationalisation I state that for nationalisation to work effectively and to meet the needs of the people then the people need to be running it. The people can run a state and its nationalised institutions through varying means of political organisation but I would point them in the direction of either demarchy or soviet councils as a way of constructing government. The people need to be in control of government for society to be fair. As long as we live in the rule of a small political elite with capitalist interests then we will be exploited and suppressed.
Wikipedia on demarchy :
<span style='font-family:Times'>Demarchy (sometimes also called klerostocracy[citation needed]) is a term coined by Australian philosopher John Burnheim to describe a political system without the state or bureaucracies, and based instead on randomly selected groups of decision makers (sortition). These groups, sometimes termed "policy juries," "citizens' juries," or "consensus conferences," would deliberate and make decisions about public policies in much the same way that juries reach verdicts on criminal cases. Demarchy attempts to achieve democratic representation without needing elections—it is "democracy without elections".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy
I would argue also that people should not be paying for public services. Health, education, energy and transport (to name a few) are needed by all humans. Why should someone have to pay to live? Of course, the institutions cannot exist without funding. After the revolution and nationalisation, money will be a concept that will still exist in society, as the state progresses then money will vanish. First off, the cost of using nationalised institutions should be the lowest possible, so that the institution is not gaining profit, it is just self-sustaining. Then the cost of running public services should be paid by taxes alone, so that everyone is paying money into every public service whether they use it or not, for they should be all working towards the common goal of communism and therefore equality and a better society to live in. If everyone is putting money into every service through taxes then the cost per individual for certain services should fall, for example if only 10% of a population are in a hospital at one time then that 10% would be paying less if every single person is paying money into the hospitals. People will argue that this is not fair. Why should you have to put money towards someone else heating his or her home? Hopefully we will not need to explain the answer to people by this stage in society for a mass revolution will have occurred and everyone will agree that we need to support each other and work together for a better, fairer society. Eventually money will not exist and by working together then institutions should function easily as they did when money exist, though I believe money cannot cease to exist until all states in the world have became communist.
I say that under communism we need a very controlled economy, which the people operate themselves. It is important to note that we need to make sure that an elite does not emerge; I think demarchy would solve this. By using demarchy to randomly select decision makers then it makes sure that the same people cannot stay in power and thus the quick turnover of decision makers will mean that an elite group would not be able to gain control over others. There should be two chambers of the political organisation set up: one to make decisions and a second to confirm that a decision is in the best interests of the people. There should be channels that allow the public to overturn a decision if the majority disagree with it also.
But which institutions should be under public control? All the institutions that the public use and need of course! Below is a list of branches of institutions that should be nationalised.
Health services : Hospitals, dental clinics and such.
Education services : Nurseries, schools, colleges, universities and such.
Energy services : Coal, wind farms, oil, gas, electric and such.
Food and Water : See below
Social Care : Nursing homes, prisons and others.
Manufacturers : Vehicles, electronics, clothing and more.
Transport Services : Trains, buses, planes and subways/underground/metro.
Information Services : Some television channels, newspapers and websites.
There are other areas, which are self-explanatory such as agriculture and mining, and probably some I have forgotten.
Out of them listed, “Food and Water” and “Information Services” are probably the most controversial so I will address these issues now.
Food and water are basic human needs. I say, we have human rights but we have human requirements also, we need air, food, water, shelter and such, how can society deprive us of these? We need to find a way in which we can live for free. Basic food and water should be provided to all, at least in the form of raw goods. I am not suggesting taking over every coffee shop and restaurant, they should be allowed to operate outside of control of government but still in the hands of everyday people and not making any profit.
As for information services, people will be screaming “thought police” and such at this idea, no doubt. Again, I am not suggesting entirely taking over every form of media however there should be government owned television channels, newspapers and websites so that the decisions of the demarchy government can be passed onto the people and so that the people can have awareness of world events. I would invite newspapers to be created by students, privately made movies and websites so long as they are not exploiting people or gaining large amount of money.
To back up the argument for all of this nationalisation it could be argued that it could increase productivity amongst the enlightened citizens of the state, as they will be aware they are working for the common good and not just making an elite become richer and richer. Also essential services will be secured for the public, never again will a citizen not be able to get the basic needs required to survive.
Most importantly, the distribution of wealth will become balanced forever after!
</span>
I have wrote what can only be described as a ramble of my views of nationalisation. Go easy on me, I'm no expert. I'm accepting criticism of course. I want to know where I am going wrong but prefer to not have the 'you fucking idiot' remarks and such lol. enjoy....or not.
Remember this is my first decent lengthed attempt to tackle an issue like this. Man, I'm really quite nervous, seen how you people can rip apart people's views lol.
The Question of Nationalisation: Giving it back to the people
In most left leaning countries (both current and in the past) the governments allows for some institutions to be nationalised. Nationalisation is the act of a government or/and the people taking assets into public ownership rather than being owned by a powerful elite. Cuba is an example of a state that nationalised many companies, it did so after the 1959 revolution nationalising a grand number of companies ranging from oil refineries to the Cuban telephone company.
Nationalisation can benefit society in many ways but most notably, it transforms an institution’s main goal of making money into serving the public’s needs and so becoming directly accountable to the public, in theory. Naturally, many capitalists will find the idea of nationalisation quite disturbing. While we know that capitalists are money greedy fiends, they may have a point that if you nationalise an industry then there will be no competition, which could be argued helps industries move forward. After all if the government is holding a monopoly over public transport, for example, then there will be no alternative that the public can use and no matter how bad the service is, the public will have to use it. This needs to be avoided, but how?
To keep an institution directly accountable to the people then the people need a direct say in how the institutions are ran. Some institutions are nationalised under capitalism. For example, in the United Kingdom a large range of institutions were under nationalisation until as late as the 1970s, such as British Gas, British Rail and British Shipbuilders. However under capitalism, the government and thus the people who decide how nationalised institutions are organised are made up of political elite who often does not represent the majority of the population that they serve. This can be backed up by the fact that most members of Parliament are educated in certain universities, tend to be white, middle aged, male and from a middle class or even upper class background who have no idea what it is like to use public transport or live in government rented accommodation. Therefore how can they possibly run institutions effectively for the use of the everyday man, especially when politicians are subject to businesses trying to buy deals in government projects and other corruption? So for a first major point regarding nationalisation I state that for nationalisation to work effectively and to meet the needs of the people then the people need to be running it. The people can run a state and its nationalised institutions through varying means of political organisation but I would point them in the direction of either demarchy or soviet councils as a way of constructing government. The people need to be in control of government for society to be fair. As long as we live in the rule of a small political elite with capitalist interests then we will be exploited and suppressed.
Wikipedia on demarchy :
<span style='font-family:Times'>Demarchy (sometimes also called klerostocracy[citation needed]) is a term coined by Australian philosopher John Burnheim to describe a political system without the state or bureaucracies, and based instead on randomly selected groups of decision makers (sortition). These groups, sometimes termed "policy juries," "citizens' juries," or "consensus conferences," would deliberate and make decisions about public policies in much the same way that juries reach verdicts on criminal cases. Demarchy attempts to achieve democratic representation without needing elections—it is "democracy without elections".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy
I would argue also that people should not be paying for public services. Health, education, energy and transport (to name a few) are needed by all humans. Why should someone have to pay to live? Of course, the institutions cannot exist without funding. After the revolution and nationalisation, money will be a concept that will still exist in society, as the state progresses then money will vanish. First off, the cost of using nationalised institutions should be the lowest possible, so that the institution is not gaining profit, it is just self-sustaining. Then the cost of running public services should be paid by taxes alone, so that everyone is paying money into every public service whether they use it or not, for they should be all working towards the common goal of communism and therefore equality and a better society to live in. If everyone is putting money into every service through taxes then the cost per individual for certain services should fall, for example if only 10% of a population are in a hospital at one time then that 10% would be paying less if every single person is paying money into the hospitals. People will argue that this is not fair. Why should you have to put money towards someone else heating his or her home? Hopefully we will not need to explain the answer to people by this stage in society for a mass revolution will have occurred and everyone will agree that we need to support each other and work together for a better, fairer society. Eventually money will not exist and by working together then institutions should function easily as they did when money exist, though I believe money cannot cease to exist until all states in the world have became communist.
I say that under communism we need a very controlled economy, which the people operate themselves. It is important to note that we need to make sure that an elite does not emerge; I think demarchy would solve this. By using demarchy to randomly select decision makers then it makes sure that the same people cannot stay in power and thus the quick turnover of decision makers will mean that an elite group would not be able to gain control over others. There should be two chambers of the political organisation set up: one to make decisions and a second to confirm that a decision is in the best interests of the people. There should be channels that allow the public to overturn a decision if the majority disagree with it also.
But which institutions should be under public control? All the institutions that the public use and need of course! Below is a list of branches of institutions that should be nationalised.
Health services : Hospitals, dental clinics and such.
Education services : Nurseries, schools, colleges, universities and such.
Energy services : Coal, wind farms, oil, gas, electric and such.
Food and Water : See below
Social Care : Nursing homes, prisons and others.
Manufacturers : Vehicles, electronics, clothing and more.
Transport Services : Trains, buses, planes and subways/underground/metro.
Information Services : Some television channels, newspapers and websites.
There are other areas, which are self-explanatory such as agriculture and mining, and probably some I have forgotten.
Out of them listed, “Food and Water” and “Information Services” are probably the most controversial so I will address these issues now.
Food and water are basic human needs. I say, we have human rights but we have human requirements also, we need air, food, water, shelter and such, how can society deprive us of these? We need to find a way in which we can live for free. Basic food and water should be provided to all, at least in the form of raw goods. I am not suggesting taking over every coffee shop and restaurant, they should be allowed to operate outside of control of government but still in the hands of everyday people and not making any profit.
As for information services, people will be screaming “thought police” and such at this idea, no doubt. Again, I am not suggesting entirely taking over every form of media however there should be government owned television channels, newspapers and websites so that the decisions of the demarchy government can be passed onto the people and so that the people can have awareness of world events. I would invite newspapers to be created by students, privately made movies and websites so long as they are not exploiting people or gaining large amount of money.
To back up the argument for all of this nationalisation it could be argued that it could increase productivity amongst the enlightened citizens of the state, as they will be aware they are working for the common good and not just making an elite become richer and richer. Also essential services will be secured for the public, never again will a citizen not be able to get the basic needs required to survive.
Most importantly, the distribution of wealth will become balanced forever after!
</span>